Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Alexiev]

*God exists and created all that is.

*Man is more than just meat (he has, or is, a free will; is morally discerning and therefore is capable of, and subject to, moral judgement; is ensouled).

*Morality is fact, not opinion, and pertains to what is and is not permissible between and among men.

I reckon Mannie and me are far closer than you or I, or you and him. He and I are largely on the page while you and me, or you and him, aren't even in the same book.

In my post above about "Paradise Lost" I purport that Milton questions whether God's moral authority is de facto or de jure. In other words, does His authority regarding moral principles result because He rules, and creates, and has the power to decide? Or is His authority "de jure", which would suggest that moral law somehow precedes God's will or, at leat, is independent of it?

If we say, "God us beneficent and just", we must mean something more than, "God is God." Otherwise the statement is meaningless. So if these moral terms describe God and his rule there are several possibilities:

1) God rules and is all powerful. Therefore his will is law. (De facto)

2) We can derive moral principles apart from God, and we find that He is perfect in His compliance with them. (De jure).

There may be other possibilities. If so, what are they?

[Harbal]

I reckon Mannie and me are far closer than you or I, or you and him. He and I are largely on the page while you and me, or you and him, aren't even in the same book.

Thanks, henry, that means a lot to me.

[henry quirk]

does His authority regarding moral principles result because He rules, and creates, and has the power to decide? Or is His authority "de jure", which would suggest that moral law somehow precedes God's will or, at leat, is independent of it?

Here's what I think: the creator (of a novel, or Reality) is the moral principle.

You or I, as free wills, are utterly free to abide or not.

The consequences, either way, are on us, as individuals, alone.

-----

All this stuff...

A creator creates; a perfect creator creates perfectly. The former does the best he can; the later can only do His best.

Note: I've said nuthin' about omniscience or omnipotence (my religion, such as it is, requires neither of Him).

...fits into my answer somehow (I just don't know how [which is why I trimmed it from my formal answer]).

[Alexiev]

does His authority regarding moral principles result because He rules, and creates, and has the power to decide? Or is His authority "de jure", which would suggest that moral law somehow precedes God's will or, at leat, is independent of it?

Here's what I think: the creator (of a novel, or Reality) is the moral principle.

You or I, as free wills, are utterly free to abide or not.

The consequences, either way, are on us, as individuals, alone.

-----

All this stuff...

A creator creates; a perfect creator creates perfectly. The former does the best he can; the later can only do His best.

Note: I've said nuthin' about omniscience or omnipotence (my religion, such as it is, requires neither of Him).

...fits into my answer somehow (I just don't know how [which is why I trimmed it from my formal answer]).

That leaves the question unresolved. How do we know God is a Perfect Creator if there is no measure of perfection? If anything God creates is perfect, because He is the ruler and creator, than "perfection" doesn't mean much. If, on the other hand, there is some way to determine that God is perfectly good, we must have an outside measure of goodness.

[henry quirk]

That leaves the question unresolved.

Yes, it does.

[Gary Childress]

That leaves the question unresolved. How do we know God is a Perfect Creator if there is no measure of perfection? If anything God creates is perfect, because He is the ruler and creator, than "perfection" doesn't mean much. If, on the other hand, there is some way to determine that God is perfectly good, we must have an outside measure of goodness.

Yes, it does.

Agreed.

[Sculptor]

"Theism" and "Moral Realism" are not even on the same page.
On is a claim and the existence of a creator, and the other is a claim that some personal values are true or false.

The only thing where they are similar is that belief in them requires someone with limited congnitive ability to accept either as true.
And that when the former is believed the latter is soon to follow.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree that a supreme being might have the authority and power to command you, but I don't see how its moral opinion would be any more than an opinion.

That's only because you're not understanding what Supreme Being means.

Strictly speaking, it's because I'm not understanding what you specifically mean by "Supreme Being".

Yeah, it is. You clearly don't know what the superlative "Supreme" is supposed to convey. It means God is before all, and all things consist in Him...as the Bible claims.

It means "the Origin of all things," which of course includes morality.

It must also include my taste in music, then.

Music is a thing. Like all things, it was invented by the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being also created you as a volitional being, which means that your taste is up to you.

Morality demands that we behave according to what we believe to be right,

Not true. Morality demands we behave according to the moral truth.

No, I think what I said is correct.

There is nothing that "demands" we do so. If "Morality" referred to an objective reality, you'd possibly be right. But you think "morality" is the name of a twinge. And twinges don't "demand," and can rightly be ignored.

I reject your whole concept of objective morality,

Which is exactly why you're left with no substance to any moral judgments at all.

Actually, you are the one with no substance,

Here's the problem: criticizing others won't provide Subjectivism with substance. It would just mean you should be a Nihilist.

I'm afraid your predictions of future events do not constitute an argument.

How about God's promises concerning the future?

If I wanted to worry about things like that I suppose I would become a Christian.

Well, maybe that's a good thing to think about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Theism" and "Moral Realism" are not even on the same page.
On is a claim and the existence of a creator, and the other is a claim that some personal values are true or false.

The only thing where they are similar is that belief in them requires someone with limited congnitive ability to accept either as true.
And that when the former is believed the latter is soon to follow.

In terms of Venn Diagrams, there are overlaps between moral realism and theism.

There are two senses of moral realism, i.e.
1. The realistic Framework and system sense [realistic]
2. The philosophical realism mind-independence sense [illusory].

PH et. al. are philosophical realists adopting the ideology of philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Theist are also philosophical realists.
Both share the same definition of what is Moral Realism from the philosophical realists' perspective.
Their difference is theists accept there are objective moral facts which are from God thus morality is objective and thus moral realism.
Based on the same definition, PH et. all, deny there are objective moral facts either existing by themselves or from a God.

Therefore, whilst there are differences, theism and moral realism share the same concepts to some degrees within a venn diagram.

The critical point is both theists and PH et. al. who rely of the ideology of philosophical realism are grounding their claims based on illusions.
So they are sharing the same illusory concepts in relation to moral realism.

What is moral objectivity and moral realism proper is based on sense 1 above, i.e.
1. The realistic Framework and system sense
This moral realism or moral objectivity is subsumed within philosophical antirealism or my preferred "ANTI-philosophical_realism".

[Harbal]

That's only because you're not understanding what Supreme Being means.

Strictly speaking, it's because I'm not understanding what you specifically mean by "Supreme Being".

Yeah, it is. You clearly don't know what the superlative "Supreme" is supposed to convey. It means God is before all, and all things consist in Him...as the Bible claims.

The gods of the various religions have various super powers, and although I'm more familiar with the god that appears in the Bible, I'm hardly an expert on the subject, and there's no reason why I should be.

It must also include my taste in music, then.

Music is a thing. Like all things, it was invented by the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being also created you as a volitional being, which means that your taste is up to you.

Well moral values are a matter of taste.

Not true. Morality demands we behave according to the moral truth.

No, I think what I said is correct.

There is nothing that "demands" we do so.

The definition of "morality" demands that we behave according to what we believe to be right, otherwise we are not practicing morality.

Actually, you are the one with no substance,

Here's the problem: criticizing others won't provide Subjectivism with substance. It would just mean you should be a Nihilist.

We come by our moral values in various ways; from our parents, from the society we grow up in, etc. You just happen to take yours directly from the Bible, which means you are just following a rule book, rather than have any moral substance of your own.

How about God's promises concerning the future?

If I wanted to worry about things like that I suppose I would become a Christian.

Well, maybe that's a good thing to think about.

The more I think about it, the less appealing the idea becomes, so yes, it is a good thing to think about.

[Age]

Why does "immanuel can" continually when referring to God, and choices, talk about God cin the future' and what is 'said to happen'?

Is it because "immanuel can" has absolutely nothing of any actual substance at of that it could use to back up and support its beliefs here?

Obviously, claiming that God is a male-gendered thing, being, or creature will never ever suffice. So, is the only thing "immanuel can" has here is trying to put onto, and share with, others its own Truly irrational fear of 'you will find out when you die' absurd belief?

Saying, and trying to claim, 'How about God's promises concerning the future?' is absolutely illogical while one cannot explain what the word God even refers to, Correctly, let alone while one cannot provide any actual supporting proof of God, Itself.

[Sculptor]

"Theism" and "Moral Realism" are not even on the same page.
On is a claim and the existence of a creator, and the other is a claim that some personal values are true or false.

The only thing where they are similar is that belief in them requires someone with limited congnitive ability to accept either as true.
And that when the former is believed the latter is soon to follow.

In terms of Venn Diagrams, there are overlaps between moral realism and theism.

No.
Whilst you can construct a Venn diagramme to express and overlap with Theists and Moral realists.
THere is no overlap between theism (a belief in a god) with Moral realism (a belief in moral facts). THe idea that a god might exist is a belief in a concrete entity, the latter is a belief in a series of non concrete ideas.
Whilst they might be of concern to one another, you can only overlap them in the fact that some people might hold both beliefs; but they are not coinicident in necessary ideas.

[Immanuel Can]

Strictly speaking, it's because I'm not understanding what you specifically mean by "Supreme Being".

Yeah, it is. You clearly don't know what the superlative "Supreme" is supposed to convey. It means God is before all, and all things consist in Him...as the Bible claims.

The gods of the various religions have various super powers, and although I'm more familiar with the god that appears in the Bible, I'm hardly an expert on the subject, and there's no reason why I should be.

Well, there is, actually...but since you don't think so, I think you should at least grasp the meaning of the concepts you aim to debate.

Well moral values are a matter of taste.

If they were, then they're nothing at all. So you should be a Nihilist, really...assuming you were planning to be rational. There's no point in believing in something that you supposed to be "moral," but which give nobody, including yourself, any information about the real world.

No, I think what I said is correct.

There is nothing that "demands" we do so.

The definition of "morality" demands

Definitions don't "demand." They just "define." They have no duty-giving significance at all.

We come by our moral values in various ways; from our parents, from the society we grow up in, etc.

All this says is "morals are just indoctrination." Nihilism again.

moral substance of your own.

What "substance" do your morals have? They're fictional, you say, based on no more than taste, and on nothing that can't change anytime. You're left completely without moral information, except that in which you've been indoctrinated, you say...

And, of course, indoctrination is being fooled. So you've been fooled into believing you are doing moral things, when the word actually means nothing more than "obeying indoctrination." Hardly what people try to mean by "moral."

[Harbal]

Yeah, it is. You clearly don't know what the superlative "Supreme" is supposed to convey. It means God is before all, and all things consist in Him...as the Bible claims.

The gods of the various religions have various super powers, and although I'm more familiar with the god that appears in the Bible, I'm hardly an expert on the subject, and there's no reason why I should be.

Well, there is, actually...but since you don't think so, I think you should at least grasp the meaning of the concepts you aim to debate.

We are debating morality, and I do have a grasp of the concept, and it has nothing to do with religion or God.

Well moral values are a matter of taste.

If they were, then they're nothing at all.

That does not logically follow.

The definition of "morality" demands

Definitions don't "demand." They just "define." They have no duty-giving significance at all.

I might have put it clumsily, but I am describing the demands of morality based on the word's definition.

We come by our moral values in various ways; from our parents, from the society we grow up in, etc.

All this says is "morals are just indoctrination." Nihilism again.

But we are free, or should be, to disagree with any prevailing moral consensus within our society, and to arrive at our own moral judgements. If you are forced to just accept a certain set of morals, as you appear to be, that is an instance of indoctrination. Either way, I don't see what nihilism has got to do with it. The word doesn't frighten me, if that is why you keep mentioning it.

moral substance of your own.

What "substance" do your morals have? They're fictional,

My feelings about morality aren't fictional, they are real. The Bible is mostly fiction, however.

You're left completely without moral information, except that in which you've been indoctrinated, you say...

I would say informed and influenced by, rather than indoctrinated. But I am able to modify my moral views based on my own moral sense as well. You are the one who has been indoctrinated by the Bible.

And, of course, indoctrination is being fooled.

But luckily I am not dumb enough to be fooled by your attempts at it.

So you've been fooled into believing you are doing moral things, when the word actually means nothing more than "obeying indoctrination." Hardly what people try to mean by "moral."

You were really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you pulled that strange bit of reasoning out.

[Immanuel Can]

The gods of the various religions have various super powers, and although I'm more familiar with the god that appears in the Bible, I'm hardly an expert on the subject, and there's no reason why I should be.

Well, there is, actually...but since you don't think so, I think you should at least grasp the meaning of the concepts you aim to debate.

We are debating morality, and I do have a grasp of the concept, and it has nothing to do with religion or God.

That's assumptive, on your part. You've certainly done nothing to demonstrate it. At most, all you've succeeded in suggesting is that morality is nothing at all...a conclusion you're at pains to try to dodge, but you've given yourself no way to do it, because Subjectivism has no substance, and is therefore the belief that morality has no stability, no durability, no duty, and no relevance to others, to a society, to a judgment or a system of justice, or to facts about the world.

Well moral values are a matter of taste.

If they were, then they're nothing at all.

That does not logically follow.

That's ALL that can possibly, logically follow from Subjectivism.

I am describing the demands of morality based on the word's definition.

"The world's demands" are only expressions of their power. They're nothing like "moral." They're just an exercise of force, which is often notoriously immoral.

We come by our moral values in various ways; from our parents, from the society we grow up in, etc.

All this says is "morals are just indoctrination." Nihilism again.

But we are free, or should be, to disagree with any prevailing moral consensus within our society, and to arrive at our own moral judgements.

"Should"? There's no "should" in your world. There's only "is." "Should" is only the majority trying to force or fool you into doing something they want. And the "consensus" is utterly irrelevant to the Subjectivist, since, as you demand, he has to be "free to disagree" with it whenever his taste leans that way.

I don't see what nihilism has got to do with it. The word doesn't frighten me, if that is why you keep mentioning it.

"Frighten"? No. I'm just pointing out the only logical conclusion of Subjectivism. That's what it's called: "Nihilism." You can like it or not, and it makes no difference to the result, if that's where the logic of your position points.

moral substance of your own.

What "substance" do your morals have? They're fictional,

My feelings about morality aren't fictional, they are real.

Feelings create no obligation. And they don't last, either.

You're left completely without moral information, except that in which you've been indoctrinated, you say...

I would say informed and influenced by, rather than indoctrinated. But I am able to modify my moral views based on my own moral sense as well.

All your society has done, then, is to suggest options you're totally free to disregard.

It hasn't taught you what's "moral," just what's "optional." And when you've refused it, you aren't even an "immoral" person; just inconvenient to them, and they may use their power to bludgeon you -- for which they will not be "immoral" either, since, so long as they feel like it's moral to bludgeon you, they can, and still be "moral" by your definition.

Do you see how absurd that is? There's absolutely no use left for the word "moral." It's become nothing but an empty, residual pride-term, one culled from the days when people believed in objective morals, and could speak of being "moral," but now that (as you insist) they don't have to, with actually no meaning at all.